The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
-
@neil it already started with the online and cloud based approach for almost anything
@neil yes and they want subscriptions in order to build a solid and predictable MRR.
I don't blame organizations for making money because it's what they are for (also working in banking I would be hypocrite to say otherwise) but the whole system needs a critical approach. -
@janeishly @neil What happens when somebody you don’t want to use your computer turns it on though?
@gimulnautti @janeishly @neil
That’s why we have locks on doors.
-
@neil @revk I think we should ask what ownership even means today. If I buy a device but can only use it under imposed conditions, like mandatory ID or age checks, do I truly own it? Or is it becoming conditional possession, where key rights no longer lie with the owner? The real issue is whether lawmakers are gradually replacing true ownership with a regulated model of use.
@tdr @neil @revk
> lawmakers are gradually replacing true ownership with a regulated
Lawmakers do what they got the bribe money (or future desk) for.The age verification is a smoke screen to the full identification. Then to the full suppression of dissent. Then to the laws that will open the whole new market of slaves being a real commodity.
-
@neil There is exactly one person who gets to decide what happens in my computer. Me.
If you want to run things in my world, you play by my rules and only my rules.
Wait Shit. Am I'm turning in to a conservative, I want things to remain how they were twenty years ago... Is this is what they meant about getting more conservative when you get older?
-
@neil I am very concearned about age verification on OS level thing thats on the talks lately. So i am NOT trying to under estimate this threath, ok. Still i have a total noob question here: how could that ever be enforcable?
Somodoby just goes "fuck that!" Makes a linux distro that does not ask any of that shit and puts it out for free.
How can this effect those users?
You're assuming you'll always have access to hardware that will accept that linux image.
-
@neil I am very concearned about age verification on OS level thing thats on the talks lately. So i am NOT trying to under estimate this threath, ok. Still i have a total noob question here: how could that ever be enforcable?
Somodoby just goes "fuck that!" Makes a linux distro that does not ask any of that shit and puts it out for free.
How can this effect those users?
Bios secure boot normally turned on by default.
Linux needs keys signed by Microsoft to boot.
So Microsoft can deny use of Linux distros if not compliant.
"When Secure Boot is enabled on a system, any attempt to execute an untrusted program will not be allowed. This stops unexpected / unauthorised code from running in the UEFI environment.
Most x86 hardware comes from the factory pre-loaded with Microsoft keys. This means the firmware on these systems will trust binaries that are signed by Microsoft. Most modern systems will ship with Secure Boot enabled - they will not run any unsigned code by default. Starting with Debian version 10 ("Buster"), Debian supports UEFI Secure Boot by employing a small UEFI loader called shim which is signed by Microsoft and embeds Debian's signing keys. This allows Debian to sign its own binaries without requiring further signatures from Microsoft"
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil "You should own nothing, and be happy***"
-
Perhaps I am some kind of dangerous computer radical these days, thinking that one should be able to buy or make a computer, install one's choice of OSs and software, create a local user account, and get on with one's affairs, privately and without interference.
Quiet enjoyment of one's computer.
* No age or ID verification
* No jumping through hoops to install software, or third parties restricting the software that one can run
* No third party accounts
@neil I have never used my full name when setting up my user on a personal Linux device.
I generally give computers hostnames that do not identify the devices type.
My email addresses to do not include my name nor parts of my name.
My online usernames are unique per site and do not contain references to my real name.
Not that this helps much with device fingerprinting as it is today but I feel I have to try to do something.
Every act of resistance counts.
-
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil
One could argue it'd be more important add locks on fridges which only open if you verify your age and identity, since the top shelf inside has a can of beer on it.
Or locks + verification on drawers, since there's a steak knife inside.But turning the world into an unsafe surveillance dystopia with even more phishing + data management malpractice + exploit opportunities is insanity and dangerous.
-
Bios secure boot normally turned on by default.
Linux needs keys signed by Microsoft to boot.
So Microsoft can deny use of Linux distros if not compliant.
"When Secure Boot is enabled on a system, any attempt to execute an untrusted program will not be allowed. This stops unexpected / unauthorised code from running in the UEFI environment.
Most x86 hardware comes from the factory pre-loaded with Microsoft keys. This means the firmware on these systems will trust binaries that are signed by Microsoft. Most modern systems will ship with Secure Boot enabled - they will not run any unsigned code by default. Starting with Debian version 10 ("Buster"), Debian supports UEFI Secure Boot by employing a small UEFI loader called shim which is signed by Microsoft and embeds Debian's signing keys. This allows Debian to sign its own binaries without requiring further signatures from Microsoft"
@SuperMoosie @Kantikainen @neil this stranglehold MS has over home computers including Linux has never fully dawned on me before. I can't imagine China accepting that, do they have knock off x86 chips without the "secure bios"
-
Bios secure boot normally turned on by default.
Linux needs keys signed by Microsoft to boot.
So Microsoft can deny use of Linux distros if not compliant.
"When Secure Boot is enabled on a system, any attempt to execute an untrusted program will not be allowed. This stops unexpected / unauthorised code from running in the UEFI environment.
Most x86 hardware comes from the factory pre-loaded with Microsoft keys. This means the firmware on these systems will trust binaries that are signed by Microsoft. Most modern systems will ship with Secure Boot enabled - they will not run any unsigned code by default. Starting with Debian version 10 ("Buster"), Debian supports UEFI Secure Boot by employing a small UEFI loader called shim which is signed by Microsoft and embeds Debian's signing keys. This allows Debian to sign its own binaries without requiring further signatures from Microsoft"
@SuperMoosie @neil sooooo....is this a problem if you just turn secure boot off? I have done so every time i installed new OS anyway.
-
@SuperMoosie @neil sooooo....is this a problem if you just turn secure boot off? I have done so every time i installed new OS anyway.
@Kantikainen @SuperMoosie Yes, and that is fine *while that remains an option*.
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
-
@SuperMoosie @Kantikainen @neil this stranglehold MS has over home computers including Linux has never fully dawned on me before. I can't imagine China accepting that, do they have knock off x86 chips without the "secure bios"
@SuperMoosie @Kantikainen @neil
To answer my own question, China doesn't trust MS secure bios:
-
Perhaps I am some kind of dangerous computer radical these days, thinking that one should be able to buy or make a computer, install one's choice of OSs and software, create a local user account, and get on with one's affairs, privately and without interference.
Quiet enjoyment of one's computer.
* No age or ID verification
* No jumping through hoops to install software, or third parties restricting the software that one can run
* No third party accounts
@neil It is a war on general computation. Cory Doctorow observed that about 15 years ago.
Skews the balance of power even more towards platforms.
Computation is power!
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil what’s next?
Verify age before using dishwasher, washing machine, robo-vacuum , robo-lawn mower and other household appliances that have computers in them? -
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil Annoys me.
-
The fact that it is happening is what is baffling me.
@neil @Em0nM4stodon Everybody should be preparing for 2 devices. One “freedom device” and one “slavery device” mandated by the state. Hopefully we won’t arrive to a situation where our houses are stormed in search of “freedom devices“.
-
Bios secure boot normally turned on by default.
Linux needs keys signed by Microsoft to boot.
So Microsoft can deny use of Linux distros if not compliant.
"When Secure Boot is enabled on a system, any attempt to execute an untrusted program will not be allowed. This stops unexpected / unauthorised code from running in the UEFI environment.
Most x86 hardware comes from the factory pre-loaded with Microsoft keys. This means the firmware on these systems will trust binaries that are signed by Microsoft. Most modern systems will ship with Secure Boot enabled - they will not run any unsigned code by default. Starting with Debian version 10 ("Buster"), Debian supports UEFI Secure Boot by employing a small UEFI loader called shim which is signed by Microsoft and embeds Debian's signing keys. This allows Debian to sign its own binaries without requiring further signatures from Microsoft"
@SuperMoosie @Kantikainen @neil I want Microsoft to explicitly bleed and DIE in a bloody Antitrust case.
